81–90 of 260 posts
If the goal is simply to disrupt air travel, why not just call in a bomb threat?
Because they're not terrorists. Terrorists use violence (and credible threats of violence) against civilians to achieve political ends. Instead, the activists here are disrupting air traffic using nonviolent means.
Air travel is such a non issue, for any person flying it will of course be a large part of their carbon footprint, but the atmosphere does not care where the CO2 came from. https://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/styles/icn...
What's your point? According to your link aviation emits twice as much CO2 than long distance road travel. Clearly limiting long distance travel would have an impact. Doubly so if aviation was reduced. Yet many global elites (Obama, Macron, et. al) agree to impose heavy restrictions on vehicle emissions used to feed, transport, and employ the average citizens of their countries. Meanwhile those who can afford it take…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s ridiculous. It’s disrupting air travel, no different than cutting the power to air traffic control. Protesters do not have a right to infringe on the rights of others to make their case. They can hold up signs outside the airport, but they have no right to put aircraft at risk. That is extremism.
Cutting power to air traffic control makes planes vulnerable to collisions which each other. Flying drone causes incoming planes to divert to other airports and prevents take-offs - there is no crash risk. > They can hold up signs outside the airport, but they have no right to put aircraft at risk. That is extremism. You suggest they should protest where everybody can ignore them and in order to prove your point pull…
There very much is increased risk whenever a flight plan requires sudden changes- the increased cognitive load on the flight controllers, the increased stress level on the pilots, the increased stress on the passengers... Each one may not seem like much, but it's a hole poked in the cheese.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's your point? According to your link aviation emits twice as much CO2 than long distance road travel. Clearly limiting long distance travel would have an impact. Doubly so if aviation was reduced. Yet many global elites (Obama, Macron, et. al) agree to impose heavy restrictions on vehicle emissions used to feed, transport, and employ the average citizens of their countries. Meanwhile those who can afford it take…
I think aviation is pretty well-suited to carbon taxes/offsets. There are only a few major players and it would be very easy to enforce. Also I think the market would rather easily bear a 30% increase in flight costs
Was that sarcasm? Because air travel has been a race to the bottom from what I've seen
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think aviation is pretty well-suited to carbon taxes/offsets. There are only a few major players and it would be very easy to enforce. Also I think the market would rather easily bear a 30% increase in flight costs
> Also I think the market would rather easily bear a 30% increase in flight costs Was that sarcasm? Because air travel has been a race to the bottom from what I've seen
>"Protesters plan a return to the airport—and there is very little the authorities can do" This line is curious. When was the first one? I mean there was the shenanigans where nobody was sure if there was even a drone, but there was in that case, as far as I am aware, no evidence for any activism beyond people saying that it might be activists. I am dubious about this reporting. If someone can show me something from…
And maybe I'm taking the news reports too literally, but... certainly the authorities have shotguns. If this becomes disruptive, well, the aircraft are unmanned.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I tend to agree. It makes no sense. If you're an activist, and you live in a democracy, why wouldn't you affect change more meaningfully by participating in the democracy you live in? Why would you buy something that itself has a carbon footprint (manufacturing, distribution) and that will only serve to politically damage the cause you purport to care about? What do you want people to do, fly only battery-powered pas…
> If you're an activist, and you live in a democracy, why wouldn't you affect change more meaningfully by participating in the democracy you live in? Attention getting stunts are an important method of participating in democracy, the primary and most effective form of such participation is influence campaigns, not voting (voting is a behavior influence campaig seek to guide, but an activist by definition seeks to hav…
Yes, but in this case, I think the attention getting stunt may be the article.
Air travel is such a non issue, for any person flying it will of course be a large part of their carbon footprint, but the atmosphere does not care where the CO2 came from. https://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/styles/icn...
This is largely my problem with climate activism. It seems largely based on what's fashionable. For example, ban straws in SF even though all of the ones in the ocean come from another continent[1]. Also stop offering glasses of water because there's a drought (strangely enough the drought ended but of course the laws stick around)[2]. Now a new deal which, even if 100% effective, would only reduce global CO2 emissio…
What are your suggestions? 15% is leaps and bounds better than what anyone but Jay Inslee has suggested. Anyway that’s goddamn AMAZING for a single country.
Also, 12 years is the best case estimate. The worst case is in the past, and I’ve seen good qualified arguments for at most ~4 years before irreversible climate collapse with current technology (the figure I am citing is from speculation that high CO2 levels inhibit cloud formation, but I can’t find the source at the moment, so I encourage your own research to clarify my numbers). We need to try anything and everything in some reasonable order.
>"Protesters plan a return to the airport—and there is very little the authorities can do" This line is curious. When was the first one? I mean there was the shenanigans where nobody was sure if there was even a drone, but there was in that case, as far as I am aware, no evidence for any activism beyond people saying that it might be activists. I am dubious about this reporting. If someone can show me something from…
I tend to agree. It makes no sense. If you're an activist, and you live in a democracy, why wouldn't you affect change more meaningfully by participating in the democracy you live in? Why would you buy something that itself has a carbon footprint (manufacturing, distribution) and that will only serve to politically damage the cause you purport to care about? What do you want people to do, fly only battery-powered pas…
You seem to be suggesting that there's a "right" way to participate in democracy. Instead of passing down armchair judgements about which forms are the wrong way to participate, could you perhaps suggest what you think would be a better alternative to what XR has planned here?
> Why would you buy something that itself has a carbon footprint ...
I'm curious as to what point you're actually trying to make here. Why do people chain themselves to bulldozers to protest mass deforestation? Why do people perform acts of civil disobedience to protest nations fighting wars? Most of the time the people who are involved in those movements are fundamentally morally compromised. For example if you're protesting the Vietnam war and the general US war mongering as an American, you're doing this from a place of extreme privilege - much of which was afforded to you precisely because of the great success the US has in previous wars.
> What do you want people to do, fly only battery-powered passenger airlines?
This is a bad faith interpretation of what the activists are trying to do. They're not protesting commercial air travel (although I'm sure many of them have strong opinions against our frivolous use of it). They're trying to wake people up to the fact that, while somewhat contentious, there's a pretty large (and growing!) consensus that we're utterly trashing our planet and hurtling headlong into catastrophe.
>"Protesters plan a return to the airport—and there is very little the authorities can do" This line is curious. When was the first one? I mean there was the shenanigans where nobody was sure if there was even a drone, but there was in that case, as far as I am aware, no evidence for any activism beyond people saying that it might be activists. I am dubious about this reporting. If someone can show me something from…
I tend to agree. It makes no sense. If you're an activist, and you live in a democracy, why wouldn't you affect change more meaningfully by participating in the democracy you live in? Why would you buy something that itself has a carbon footprint (manufacturing, distribution) and that will only serve to politically damage the cause you purport to care about? What do you want people to do, fly only battery-powered pas…
Like what?
We have known about environmental issues for decades, paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to get politicians to foerum to tackle the issue and sign treaties that the next guy voted in just decides they don't care, etc, etc, etc... Companies with more money than all citizen environmentalist groups put together lobby politicians and organise disinformation campaign. What do you do when "participating in the démocratie" no longer works?